The same applies for a huge percentage of manufacturing jobs outside of the auto industry. Trump got a lot of votes by telling people their jobs would come back if he was elected. He flipped MI, WI and PA with that message.

GOP voters in a nutshell.

Much harder to make those attacks stick than, “Killary” or “criminal”. Trump and Sanders courted many of the same voters, very differently.

You’re smart, and a critical thinker. I like you.

Except it’ll be a 3.5L EB hybrid.

...except, this will be the top dog for power and torque combined (not counting Shelby stuff), with a V8 still offered for those who want it anyway. They’ve been doing that* with the F-150 and will continue to. 3.5 EB + motors.

Winner winner!

3.5 EB + hybrid drive

Apple is in a good position once there is technology to distinguish accurately and consistently between driver and passenger, although by that point autonomous vehicles will likely be starting to be a major piece of the vehicles on the road.

Sure, in the initial hearing Apple can explain exactly why the idea was never turned into a released technology, if it even gets that far. A good judge would not put the burden of someone’s extremely poor choices on a company who’s product was used in a way that is improper/misuse in most states and illegal in many…

Yep, which is not justice. I don’t see any evidence that suggests Apple has any liability whatsoever. People claiming that because they have a patent means that they are liable is insane.

I should’ve copied what I have replied to this response several times already.

And good for them on patenting it. If they ever figure it out, they own it and will sell it like crazy. In all likelihood, it was either far too expensive, was too inconsistent, or just plain not yet technologically feasible to release as a product yet. People trying to claim that just because they had this idea means…

I do not own any Apple products, nor do I particularly care for them. The problem most people have with this lawsuit has nothing to do with which large organization it’s being thrown at, but rather that it is at all.

Which is why I’m hoping it gets thrown out. That doesn’t mean I’m defending patent trolls, but you shouldn’t be allowed to be sued because you patented an idea, and then couldn’t make it implementable or feasible.

I’ve always had a soft spot for the F50.

I’m sorry, I laughed a little at this one.

This is exactly what it is. I’m a bit upset with the family that they don’t have the ability (because emotionally compromised) to see how frivolous or stupid this suit is.

Makes you want to honk just to see what happens.

Proof that apple had developed, implementation-ready technology and chose not to use it? I doubt there is.